|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 30, 2019 16:12:21 GMT 1
I thought the new MAX "problem" was to do with the rudder cables ( only 1 set ) being at risk of damage from an engine failure ? not the cables to the HTP ? Or do they all run together ?
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 30, 2019 17:31:16 GMT 1
I thought the new MAX "problem" was to do with the rudder cables ( only 1 set ) being at risk of damage from an engine failure ? not the cables to the HTP ? Or do they all run together ? I could be wrong, but AFAIK they run all in the same area. Even if I am wrong and they are all well separated and the talk is only about the rudder cables, that would be bad enough.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 30, 2019 17:40:20 GMT 1
I thought the new MAX "problem" was to do with the rudder cables ( only 1 set ) being at risk of damage from an engine failure ? not the cables to the HTP ? Or do they all run together ? I could be wrong, but AFAIK they run all in the same area. Even if I am wrong and they are all well separated and the talk is only about the rudder cables, that would be bad enough. Hold the front page 😀
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 30, 2019 18:25:26 GMT 1
From what we read, no certification agency has included a suspected risk to the rudder from a possible uncontained engine failure in its list of required fixes. So, I don't think there a real issue there, only the press trying to say something more on the MAX, hoping to boost sales/clicks. Expect more to come, that's how the game is played. What you claimed is inaccurate. Please read this section again from NYT: Can you please actually read through article before making some hand waving guesses ?
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 30, 2019 23:42:50 GMT 1
Well what I see as more important than the technical aspect - i.e. the cable "there or here" is the "political" aspect - and it says something like: "We can not push the OH MIGHTY to spend its dollars on a bullshit like security - nobody cares about such nonsense".
And that is what is said there - nothing more and nothing less - put into straight words.
Sorry !
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 31, 2019 10:18:22 GMT 1
What you claimed is inaccurate. Please read this section again from NYT: .... Can you please actually read through article before making some hand waving guesses ? No, you are wrong, and you should read the article again instead of calling my comments 'inaccurate'. I claimed the subject is not considered by the FAA as a problem that needs to be fixed. Your contradiction is only based on a NYT quote from some unnamed engineers claiming that, at a distant point in the past, some former FAA representatives conceded the existence of a problem . As shown by the phrase 'early on', this discussion is supposed to have happened long ago, and the article goes on saying that in 2017 these findings were 'moot'. These recollections of an old discussion do not make the issue a present FAA concern. So far, this matter, raised only by the NYT, has not been mentioned by the FAA.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 31, 2019 11:20:40 GMT 1
What you claimed is inaccurate. Please read this section again from NYT: .... Can you please actually read through article before making some hand waving guesses ? No, you are wrong, and you should read the article again instead of calling my comments 'inaccurate'. I claimed the subject is not considered by the FAA as a problem that needs to be fixed. Your contradiction is only based on a NYT quote from some unnamed engineers claiming that, at a distant point in the past, some former FAA representatives conceded the existence of a problem . As shown by the prase 'early on', this discussion is supposed to have happened long ago, and the article goes on saying that in 2017 these findings were 'moot'. These recollections of an old discussion do not make the issue a present FAA concern. So far, this matter, raised only by the NYT, has not been mentioned by the FAA. It was considered by the FAA engineers a problem that needed to be fixed. FAA management waived it through because not to inconvenience Boeing. It is actually in a nutshell what is wrong with the FAA Boeing relationship.
|
|
mostrenco
Preparation for Convoy
Top of climb
Posts: 32
|
Post by mostrenco on Jul 31, 2019 18:19:38 GMT 1
China Southern Airlines, the world’s third largest carrier, has now publicly disclosed that it has cancelled its order for up to 64 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft. The carrier currently has 26 of the grounded aircraft in its fleet. Boeing reports 50 firm orders for the aircraft, so there are likely 24 firm and 40 options being cancelled. airinsight.com/china-southern-cancels-max-order/
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 31, 2019 19:34:17 GMT 1
What you claimed is inaccurate. Please read this section again from NYT: .... Can you please actually read through article before making some hand waving guesses ? No, you are wrong, and you should read the article again instead of calling my comments 'inaccurate'. I claimed the subject is not considered by the FAA as a problem that needs to be fixed. Your contradiction is only based on a NYT quote from some unnamed engineers claiming that, at a distant point in the past, some former FAA representatives conceded the existence of a problem . As shown by the prase 'early on', this discussion is supposed to have happened long ago, and the article goes on saying that in 2017 these findings were 'moot'. These recollections of an old discussion do not make the issue a present FAA concern. So far, this matter, raised only by the NYT, has not been mentioned by the FAA. NYT's claim is based on document and email if you read my previous post. Here is another section that is stating email and document proof and they even write supervisor's name what else do you still need ? I'm agree with you on FAA should respond to this matter whether deny or admit, but days gone and they remain silent.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 31, 2019 19:49:53 GMT 1
Friends - cool down - as always "we will see"
|
|